Standing Committee B

[Mr. Peter Atkinsonin the Chair]

Clause 17

Modifications during prescribed period

Amendment moved [this day]: No. 3, in page 12,line 40, leave out from beginning to end of line 8 on page 13.—[Lembit Öpik.]

Peter Atkinson: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing amendment No. 28, in page 12, line 40, leave out subsection (3).

Lembit Öpik: Welcome aboard, Mr. Atkinson. You join us at an exciting, nail-biting moment in proceedings.
First, I apologise to the Minister. I recognise that the poor, poor Minister of State for the Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), always seems to get the bum’s rush when it comes to this sort of legislation, with the Opposition becoming increasingly annoyed with the Government’s position. I also assure him that although I feel great warmth for him personally and have a lot of respect for his capabilities, we do not seek to provoke him or the Government for any spurious reason. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) genuinely feel the concerns that we have raised.
I move swiftly on to conclude my points about amendment No. 3. In essence, the recent history of politics in Westminster in relation to the Government’s fundraising efforts shows how any political party will seek to gain advantage using any loophole that it is possible to find. The Government should not be surprised that we are so concerned about giving Ministers the opportunity to extend the prescribed period under the clause. We should remember also that at least one party in Northern Ireland has considerable previous form when it comes to taking advantage of what one might call illegitimate fundraising techniques. 
The Minister’s position would carry more gravity if he were willing to accept that the exercise is one in risk management rather than risk elimination. What slightly irks us is that the Minister seems to suggest that the Government’s solution is perfect and our concerns are not necessarily legitimate. When the Minister responds to my amendment and to amendment No. 28, which seems to do much the same, will he be a little more balanced in recognising that our concerns are legitimate and they come down to matters of judgment? When it comes to such matters of judgment, those on the Opposition Benches and the Members of Parliament who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland have plenty of circumstantial evidence to suggest that if things are not tied down tightly and made transparent, that opaqueness will be used to maximum advantage by those who have taken much more dramatic and illegal measures to raise money before.

Lady Hermon: It is a pleasure to sit under your chairmanship this afternoon,Mr. Atkinson. It is not long since some of us sat under your chairmanship in the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, in a lively meeting if I remember correctly. This afternoon might not be so lively, but I am sure that it will be well conducted.
I rise to support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) and also to speak to the related amendment No. 28, which I tabled.
Clause 17 is an interesting provision and has to be read in conjunction with schedule 2. Clause 17 declares in the definition section:
“During the prescribed period, the 2000 Act”—
that is the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000—will apply
“in relation to Northern Ireland subject to the modifications in Schedule 1.”
That application is a welcome one.
I will not go into the modifications in schedule 1 in detail, because we will have an opportunity later, but they mean that for the first time political parties will have to notify the Electoral Commission of donations, in secrecy. It is the Electoral Commission’s duty to keep strictly confidential the detail of donations given to political parties and disclosed to the commission by political parties in Northern Ireland during what is intended to be and is described as “the prescribed period”.
According to clause 17(2):
“‘The prescribed period’ means the period—
(a) starting with 1st November 2007, and
(b) ending with 31st October 2010.”
My amendment would remove the following damaging proviso in clause 17(3), whereby:
“The Secretary of State may by order amend paragraph (b) of subsection (2) so as to extend the prescribed period.”
I do not wish that provision to appear in the final legislation for several good reasons. The first is the Secretary of State’s statement on Second Reading. I shall quote his words directly. This is not an invention by the Ulster Unionist party. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland gave the House an assurance that
“the Bill will require Northern Ireland parties, for the first time, to comply with the rules set out under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which require donations over a certain amount to be declared to the Electoral Commission. However, to take account of the continuing concerns about the possibility of donor intimidation in Northern Ireland, for a transitional period, donations to Northern Ireland parties will be checked privately by the Electoral Commission...That period will run from November 2007 and”—
these are the important words—
“pave the way for full transition to complete transparency, as in the rest of the UK, in October 2010, which remains the Government’s goal.—[Official Report, 13 March 2006; Vol. 443, c. 1175.]
That was the clear assurance given to the House.
The difficulty with the clause is when it is read in conjunction with that statement. It was unfortunate that the Secretary of State did not continue in his remarks on Second Reading to explain that through subsections (3) and (4), he, as the Secretary of State, may extend the prescribed period so that it does not end on 31 October 2010. Subsection (4) states that instead, he may by order extend that period every two years:
“The power to make an order...may be exercised on more than one occasion, but the prescribed period must not be extended for more than 2 years at a time.”
The Secretary of State may extend once, twice, three times—indefinitely.
I hoped that when the Secretary of State said to the House on Second Reading that as in the rest of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland was in full transition to complete transparency in October 2010, the Bill would put that into effect. On close scrutiny of this clause, particularly subsections (3) and (4), however, that will not be the effect. Full transparency could be delayed indefinitely on the whim of the Secretary of State every two years by an Order in Council. I refuse to allow that power to be given to the Secretary of State, and I therefore wish to see the Minister adopt the amendment.

David Hanson: I join the other members of the Committee in welcoming you to the Chair for this afternoon’s sitting, Mr. Atkinson. You may or may not be needed for a further sitting later in the week or next week. Who knows?
I thank hon. Members for raising their points and tabling the amendments before us. For the hon. Members for North Down (Lady Hermon) and for Montgomeryshire, I shall put on record straight away that it is the Government’s wish and intention that Northern Ireland becomes part of the overall regime on transparency of donations as soon as is practicable. We have provided under clause 17 that the period between 1 November 2007 and 31 October 2010 will be the prescribed period. For reasons that I explained earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell), we have disapplied the regulations on publication of donations, because there is the potential for intimidation and there are concerns about threats. The situation in Northern Ireland, although becoming more stable, remains potentially unstable, and we have disapplied the order for those reasons.

Lady Hermon: Bearing in mind the much quoted—particularly by the Northern Ireland Office and Government Ministers—statement from the IRA that
“Volunteers must not engage in any other activities whatsoever”,
where does the Minister anticipate the intimidation of those who donate to political parties coming from?

David Hanson: I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention. She will know that I anticipate and very much hope, as will every democrat in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, that the next two to three years and beyond will see the continued building of stability in the security situation in Northern Ireland that is potentially there. The hon. Lady will know also that because of the special circumstances in Northern Ireland, there is still potential for the intimidation of people who donate to political parties, for long-held enmities to continue, and for that to be manifested in intimidation or, as has been put to me by political parties during the discussions, threats to businesses that donate to political parties and others.
I hope and appreciate that normality will continue to grow, but the Bill includes a provision for the anonymous registration of donations, monitored by the Electoral Commission for that three-year period from 2007 to 2010, because the threat of that intimidation may still exist and be of concern. Legislation can be changed, but the provision is there for the Secretary of State to have the power to make the order post-2010 for a period of up to two years. Although I accept fully that the situation may be normal by 2010, and the Secretary of State may not need to apply the power, I would rather include it in case a situation arises in 2010 whereby the future Secretary of State, for whatever reason or judgment, determines that he or she cannot make those applications and funding documents public—as is done in my constituency and in those of my hon. Friends—and must continue to disapply the order.
I do not expect that we will reach that situation. I expect fully that by 2010, we will be in a situation of normality in which the Secretary of State can say that in Belfast, North Down, Foyle and Belfast, South provisions will be applied in exactly the same way that they are in my constituency and in that of the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South(Mr. Woodward). I fully expect that to be the case. However, if the Bill did not include the provision for the Secretary of State to make those decisions, which the amendments tabled by the hon. Members for Montgomeryshire and for North Down seek to delete, and in 2010, we reach a situation whereby we feel it is not practical to lift the disapplication, we would have to bring primary legislation before the House. This clause provides the Secretary of State with the order-making power to take the decision to extend the disapplication for a maximum of two years, if he so wishes. That power would also be subject to the confidence of the House of Commons and another place through a vote.
The hon. Members for Montgomeryshire and for North Down are concerned about giving the Secretary of State powers to extend the order. The Secretary of State will not want to exercise that power, because our wish is to achieve normality in Northern Ireland on a par with my constituency and those of my hon. Friends. The power is there in case that situation does not arise and the Secretary of State at that time needs to extend the disapplication.

Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the Minister for taking another intervention. I may have misheard him—I do not think that I did—but he stated that the Secretary of State will have the power to extend the provision for a maximum of two years.

David Hanson: On each individual occasion.

Lady Hermon: Precisely. I just wanted the Minister to confirm that a Secretary of State will be able repeatedly to extend the provision for two years at a time, which is the wording in the clause.

David Hanson: The hon. Lady did not mishear me. I said that the Secretary of State can undertake to extend the order by a maximum of two years at a time. Each time that he does so, it must be confirmed by this House and by another place in an order before the House. I have said to the hon. Lady and to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire that the purpose of the legislation is to ensure that provision for donations in Northern Ireland is put on a par with that in the rest of the United Kingdom. The disapplication period will last for three years in order to cover the points of concern that have been put to us, for instance, by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South.
That disapplication period will end in 2010, but if at that time, the Secretary of State judges that they need to extend it, he, or she, can do so for two years, subject to a vote in this House and in another place. But that will be the case only if that is the situation at the time, which I do not expect. I hope that it will be recognised that our intention is to apply the provision uniformly across the United Kingdom. That is the Bill’s intention, but we have the reserve power, in order to save further primary legislation, if the situation deteriorates.

Lembit Öpik: I understand the Minister’s position. I have two thoughts about that. First, the irony of the Government’s intention is that the provision will give the paramilitaries the opportunity to determine Government policy because as long as the paramilitaries are willing to intimidate people who give money to parties, the Government will have a justification for extending the provision that we are discussing.
Secondly, I have another, perhaps even greater, concern: I have warned the Government repeatedly that as long as it looks like there is a plan B, plan A will not get as much support as it otherwise would. Everything that the Minister has said suggests to me that the Government are planning for a potential impasse or failure, or a situation in which such intimidation persists.

David Hanson: I reassure the hon. Gentleman that neither I, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my hon. Friends the Members for St. Helens, South and for Basildon (Angela E. Smith) nor my noble Friend the Lord Rooker, are spending our time trying to work towards a failure. We are working for success, a peaceful situation in Northern Ireland and restoration of the Assembly, but this provision is there in case the Secretary of State, at that time, judges extensions to be necessary.

Lembit Öpik: I detect a hint of irritation in the Minister’s voice. I do not want to provoke him because I do not want to give the evidently false impression that I think that the Government expect failure. Nor do I think that he is anticipating that the legislation will fail. But to be equally precise, I observe inclause 17, as I have in his language, a desire to keep the option open.
Anybody who has been involved in such matters for a long time will agree that the Minister needs to recognise that when the Government keep their options open, they keep open also the options of those who would resist what the Government want. That is the difficulty with having a plan B—I am always advising the Government not to build one in as a subtext to the primary message of legislation.
I do not think that the Minister his hoping for, or expecting failure, or anything like that. However, by saying, “We need to keep the provision in case something goes wrong and we have to extend the prescribed period,” he is adding to the culture of expectation demonstrated repeatedly by those who resist the process and who will say, “Okay Government, you have given yourself a way forward here, even if we disagree, go ahead and use that extension order.” That is why I am opposed to this part of the legislation. I think that the hon. Member for North Down has a slightly different take on the matter, but at the end of the day, the sum total is the same.
It is not worth dividing the Committee on the matter, but I should like to reserve the right to return to it on Report, following further consultation with Ministers. I have made my points, and I am not satisfied that the Minister took them seriously. Nevertheless, for the convenience of the Committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

Modifications of 2000 Act

Alasdair McDonnell: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 23, line 34, at end insert—
‘“71F Location of donation reports
A Northern Ireland report must not at any time be kept in any office of the Commission in Northern Ireland.”'.
The amendment is very simple and could be described as a probing amendment. I would like, as I believe would many others, to be reassured by the Minister that information that is given to the Electoral Commission will be held in a safe place, preferably in London rather than Belfast. The reason for that is simple. In the period between now and 2010—and afterwards if necessary—there will be a serious risk that information that has been disclosed, but not publicly disclosed, will be leaked. We would like it not to be leaked, but if it is, we do not want the wrong people to be blamed. We do not want staff in a Belfast office automatically getting the blame.
More fundamentally, we are fully aware that paramilitary organisations have sought at times to gather information in the public sector. As I said in our debate this morning, a member of the Real IRA was convicted in October 2004 after he had accessed a number of personal details from records held at the Royal Victoria hospital in Belfast. There have also been times, dare I say, when there have been leaks from the Northern Ireland Office to hon. Members across the Committee. It appears that in 2002 the IRA was operating a spy ring inside the NIO. Those are some of the reasons, and they are enough justification to say that information kept in Belfast might not be as safe as it would be if it were kept elsewhere.
I am keen to have some reassurance from the Minister that information that has been disclosed will be kept in a safe place. Should I get that, I shall be very happy to withdraw the amendment.

David Hanson: I fully understand what my hon. Friend is trying to achieve, and I have some sympathy with the points that he makes. However, I do not think that it would be appropriate for us to put such things in primary legislation; that should be an operational matter for the Electoral Commission. My officials in the Northern Ireland Office have discussed with the Electoral Commission the location and security of any records that might be made under this legislation. It has indicated that so far as it is aware, provisionally until the Bill becomes law, the intention is that it should not hold any donation reports from Northern Ireland in premises in Belfast. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend. The security of information is particularly important to the Commission; it takes it very seriously and is aware of the sensitivities in relation to Northern Ireland. While it is an operational matter and I hope that the legislation will not fetter it, the concerns that my hon. Friend has expressed are understood by the Electoral Commission and, having discussed the matter with my officials, I have every confidence that it will act appropriately.

Lady Hermon: Will the Minister kindly enlighten the Committee about the estimated cost of the Electoral Commission’s providing the security that will be its responsibility once this is on the statute book?

David Hanson: I do not have to hand an estimate of the potential cost, but let me put it into context. The Electoral Commission is already undertaking that role for parliamentary constituencies and for parties in Scotland, England and Wales. We are adding to its burden by some 18 parliamentary constituencies, and the political parties that operate in Northern Ireland. While I do not have an estimate of the costs involved, I suspect that their overall impact on the legislation will be marginal, because they will relate to an operation that the Electoral Commission already undertakes.
If I have any figures to hand in due course, I shall write to the hon. Lady. However, the costs are marginal and the commission is content to undertake the work. Given that, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Alasdair McDonnell: I am very happy to do so, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clause 18

Power to make provision in connection with permissible donors

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Laurence Robertson: I welcome you to the Committee, Mr. Atkinson. I apologise for arriving slightly late for this afternoon’s sitting. I do not want to speak for long on the clause, but I am slightly concerned about the power that it gives to the Secretary of State. I was wondering whether the Minister would explain why it is necessary. As one or two hon. Members have commented to me, we spend time on a Bill and then we reach clause 18, which shows that it can all change by order.
Clause 18(2) states:
“The provision that may be made under subsection (1) includes provision amending or modifying—
(a) any provision of the 2000 Act;
(b) Schedule 2A to the 1983 Act”.
The clause is wide-ranging. Will the Minister explain why it is necessary to have such wide-ranging powers?
Conservative Members feel that if issues are important enough they should be in the Bill. We can then see what we are considering passing or rejecting, and have the opportunity to debate the issues, not just in statutory instrument Committees, which inevitably contain only a limited number of hon. Members. If things are in the Bill, the whole House has the opportunity to discuss them. So, will the Minister explain why clause 18 is necessary?

Alan Reid: It isa pleasure to serve under your chairmanship,Mr. Atkinson. I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson). We spend time scrutinising legislation, and we reach this clause, which gives the Secretary of State sweeping powers to amend Acts of Parliament. We are creating a culture of the Secretary of State being given sweeping powers, particularly in relation to Northern Ireland business.
I do not understand why such powers are necessary in this case. The Secretary of State has powers under the previous clauses that we have debated. I do not see why we need this sweeping clause, which gives him the power to do more or less anything he likes to various Acts of Parliament.

David Hanson: I am grateful for the points that have been made. The simple fact is that we have proposed that the Secretary of State have this power because we hope that the situation will improve and that we can introduce the regulations before 2010. The provisions give the power for the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Electoral Commission and by order before the House of Commons and another place, to change the provisions in clause 17.
I have said all along that the disapplication period in clause 17 applies until 2010, and we have given the Secretary of State powers to extend that if the situation is worse. The provision in clause 18 allows him to amend the previous clauses by order confirmed by this House, in conjunction with the Electoral Commission, if we feel that the provisions of the legislation need to apply at an earlier date.
I hope, as I am sure other hon. Members present do, that the situation will arise whereby we are able to bring normality to the funding situation in Northern Ireland earlier than 2010. The provision simply gives the Secretary of State the power to do that. I hope that offers an explanation. Hon. Members might remain concerned about the matter. I must repeat that the Secretary of State cannot just exercise the power. It will be exercised in consultation with the Electoral Commission. If hon. Members know Mr. Younger, its current chairman, they would know that the Electoral Commission would have strong views should the Secretary of State exercise the power in an inappropriate way.
If the Secretary of State were to determine that the scheme should be brought forward or ended because the situation had improved, he would need both Houses of Parliament to endorse his decision. That is the reason why the clause is included in the Bill. Given that explanation, I hope that hon. Members will allow it to stand part of the Bill, as drafted.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23

Arms decommissioning: extension of amnesty period

Lady Hermon: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in clause 23, page 16, line 5, leave out ‘2010’ and insert ‘2008’.
In this most miscellaneous of miscellaneous Bills, we are now moving on to something completely different. This clause takes us away from donations to political parties, away from the Chief Electoral Officer, and into part 6 of the Bill, which is headed “Miscellaneous”. The first of the miscellaneous items that appears under clause 23 is arms decommissioning. I say with some sadness that once again we are being asked to extend an amnesty period.
I wish to bring to the Committee’s attention the words of a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland:
“In the face of IRA decommissioning, I cannot see what possible reason loyalists now have for retaining their weapons. They certainly need not do so for the protection of their communities, which is the rightful preserve of the police and the security forces. They used to argue that they would decommission if the IRA made the first move. Well, the first move has been made: the crucial act has been carried out. It is now up to loyalist paramilitary organisations to demonstrate their support of peaceful and democratic ideals.”—[Official Report, 17 December 2001; Vol. 377, c. 45-46.]
I am sure that every single person in this room would say, “Hear, hear,” to that. Was that the current Secretary of State? No. Was it his immediate predecessor? No. Those words are in fact five years old. They were delivered by the current Secretary of State for Defence over five years ago. On that occasion, the House was being asked to consider, yet again,the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning (Amendment) Bill to extend the original decommissioning period for five years.
Five years ago, the then Secretary of State made it quite clear that in a democracy politics and violence do not mix. He insisted that if the IRA had moved on decommissioning—and it had at that stage—then loyalists had no excuse for not doing likewise. I am exceedingly concerned and disappointed that the Government now choose, under clause 23, to send completely mixed messages to loyalists.
The Government, the Northern Ireland Office and the current Secretary of State all love to quote from the Independent Monitoring Commission report when it suits them; if I might, I shall refer to the IMC’s eighth report, published on 1 February 2006. I know that there is another current IMC report involving both Governments, but it has not been published and made available to the wider world in time for our consideration.
Let me just remind Members about the activities of loyalist paramilitaries. Where do I start? There are so many—the Ulster Volunteer Force, the Red Hand Commando, the Loyalist Volunteer Force. They were responsible for the feuding that led to the deaths of four individuals. East Belfast members of the Ulster Defence Association were responsible, in the view of the IMC, for the murder on 4 October of their fellow member, Jim Gray, who was on bail following his arrest. Unfortunately, the litany of carnage caused by loyalist paramilitaries continues, according to the IMC, and the statistics are well known.
The current Secretary of State challenged loyalist paramilitaries on 21 September 2005, when he said:
“The choice for loyalist paramilitaries is clear: play the political role that you claim as your motive, or face the rigour of the law as the mafia organisations into which you seem to be degenerated. You will not be allowed to terrorise your own community”.
If that is what the Northern Ireland Office really expects of loyalist paramilitaries, why in heaven’s name is it at the same time sending out the contradictory message to them and others—the Continuity IRA, the Real IRA—that a deadline for arms decommissioning is not really a deadline and that there will continue to be an amnesty not just for five years, and then another five years, but right up to 2010? I am sure that, at that stage, the Secretary of State, whoever it is, will bring more legislation before the House to extend the amnesty.
For once, could the Government just mean what they say? Pledges were given to the people of Northern Ireland not so long ago that the amnesty period had a cut-off time of 2007. Instead of now extending it to 2010, let us just delete the reference. I know that my amendment substitutes the date 2008, which tries to find a middle way, but I just want a clear message to be sent, particularly to loyalist paramilitaries: “Enough is enough; get on with the decommissioning.”

Alasdair McDonnell: I admitted earlier that I was pleased to serve in the Committee under your chairmanship, Mr. Atkinson.
We in the Social Democratic and Labour party share the frustration of the hon. Member for North Down that decommissioning has been such a long drawn-out process. We are outraged that many of the groups have not decommissioned at all. Dissident republican factions justify their refusal to end violence and destroy their weapons, based on a fairly warped understanding of Irish history which Irish people do not generally share. They claim that in making their bombs, as they did last week in Lurgan, they are somehow upholding the will of the Irish people.
The people of Ireland, whether nationalist or Unionist, want and deserve a peaceful future. If dissident republicans care anything, or have any respect for what they claim to be the will of the people, they have no option but to destroy their weapons now and go away.
As for loyalist paramilitary groups, as tomorrow’s IMC report will doubtless make clear, they remain active and, to my mind, dangerous. They are dangerous to themselves and each other, but far more importantly, to the general public. The UDA and the UVF have yet to decommission a single bullet. Their spokesmen openly say that that is not even on their agenda. It is disgraceful that the Democratic Unionist parties and the Government have, at best, not put them under any serious pressure to get rid of their arms and ammunition. In some cases, they have offered ready-made excuses for them.
I shall give an example. Last February, after a meeting with the international decommissioning body, the DUP leader predicted that the IRA had held on to some guns and said that loyalist people should be forearmed to meet what was going to happen. In other words, he predicted that there would be a further outbreak of IRA violence. Whatever was meant by that, those who carry guns and call themselves loyalists will have only one interpretation of it: “Hold on to your guns, guys, because you’re going to need them.” Such inflammatory remarks have shown a serious lack of leadership on the part of the leader of the DUP and a reckless disregard for the safety of the public.
There is only one message that needs to be given to the loyalist paramilitary groups, and I appeal to hon. Members on the other side of the Committee to give it. It is the same as the one that we are giving and have given loud and clear to republicans and to dissident republicans. We loudly, clearly and unambiguously say: “Wind up all your activity. Destroy your guns now, and leave people in the island of Ireland, both nationalists and Unionists, to the peaceful and democratic future that they all deserve.”
I have a lot of sympathy with the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for North Down. 2010 is a long time for the amnesty to continue, but as I understand it, just because the option is there to allow an amnesty until then does not mean that it will be allowed to go on until then. Is the Minister prepared to give some sort undertaking that, even though there is an option to keep the amnesty until 2010, it will not necessarily be left until that very backstop position? Such an assurance from the Minister would go a long way. I would find it difficult not to support the Government. But 2010 is a long way off and we need a strong reassurance that that is the final backstop position and that there will be no further extensions and excuses and that no further allowances will be made.

Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman makes a vain request. My whole frustration on the previous amendment was that the Government do not really take the red line sufficiently seriously. We know already that whatever deadline they impose will be extended, such that the Minister passionately argued for the Secretary of State’s right to do so in our previous substantial discussion on clause 17 and again on clause 18. I have one question for the Minister. Given that once again we are discussing something that sets a deadline, why should we even bother to pretend that that deadline will be taken seriously? Is there anything that the Minister can say that would make the deadline any more plausible than all the other deadlines that have been breached, including this one in 2002?

Peter Robinson: I want to respond to the atrocious comments made by the hon. Member for Belfast, South. It is appalling that any hon. Member of this House would deliberately attempt, in the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), to recast the words that he used on that occasion and to put some military or violent connotation on them.
Not only was the position abundantly clear in the context in which my right hon. Friend made his remarks, but because the hon. Gentleman and his party at that time made similar comments to those that he makes today, it was explained over the airwaves so that everybody could hear what the clear intention of his remarks was. The history of decommissioning has been a very long and tiring one for the Unionist community in Northern Ireland. All the people of the Province have suffered in one way or another from the existence of illegal weaponry. We have lost thousands of our fellow citizens. Tens of thousands of them have been maimed and mutilated by those weapons.
We are not talking about some academic issue here. We are talking about the equipment that killed and injured many thousands of people in Northern Ireland to the extent that barely a family was untouched by the impact of those weapons. There is an urgency about the matter. It is important that those weapons are taken away from those who hold them and are destroyed. As far as the IRA is concerned, my party and I regretted the cavalier fashion in which the SDLP regarded the IRA’s weaponry. It regarded it as being all right for the IRA to hold on to its weapons and still to have its representatives in government. That is not a position that my party holds or will ever hold.
Our view was consistently that the IRA should not allowed into government until there was complete decommissioning. Regrettably, the SDLP and others took representatives from the IRA into government while it still held on to its weaponry and took away the urgency that was required for decommissioning to take place. That urgency still eludes the Minister, as he wants to stretch out into the far distant future the limits on when it might be possible to have decommissioning.
My party and I see no moral distinction between the IRA holding on to weapons and a loyalist organisation holding on to weapons. There is no distinction whatever: all those weapons should be handed over. All of them should be destroyed at the earliest moment. I do not take the view, which some hold, that we no longer need to look over our shoulders at the stockpiles of the Provisional IRA.
I immediately indicated that I considered the decommissioning act that took place recently to be substantial decommissioning. There is no doubt that the IRA substantially decommissioned on that day. Two witnesses saw the event and, in very vague terms, reported the fact. General de Chastelain saw it and, in imprecise terms, reported the fact, but it is at least clear from what those witnesses said that a large quantity of weaponry was destroyed. However, General de Chastelain and the two Church witnesses immediately embarked on a spinning operation, telling the community that the IRA had completed decommissioning and destroyed all its weapons. When asked to produce some evidence that all the IRA’s weaponry was involved, they relied on the fact that the IRA had told them that.
General de Chastelain and the two Church witnesses might satisfy themselves with the word of the IRA but my party leader quite rightly did not, and nor did the IMC, which, on obtaining evidence that the IRA still held on to some weaponry, reported it in its eighth report. The IMC indicated that, although the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning had been prepared to turn a blind eye to the IRA holding on to its weaponry, it was not. The IMC noted the fact that weaponry had been retained and also gave some descriptive terms, indicating that the IRA had held on to a range of weaponry.
I cannot predict what the IMC report might say when it is published tomorrow, but as always the two Governments have been attempting to get their retaliations in first and spinning the report as best they can in the hours leading up to its publication. One of the leaks of the report seems to indicate that the IMC will hold to its position that the IRA still has illegal weaponry. If the report is accurate, it will indicate that the IRA leadership did not sanction the holding of that weaponry—I am sure that that will bring some comfort to people who will face the barrel of one of the guns—and that it was held by local cells, organisations, quartermasters or whatever grand title they give themselves.
That being the case, the book is not closed on Provisional IRA decommissioning. More has to be done. If some cells or units have held on to weaponry and that was not sanctioned by the IRA, the IRA has to deal with that issue. It is responsible for decommissioning all its weapons.

Nick Palmer: If the IMC, either tomorrow or at some future date, said that it believed that the process had been concluded, would the hon. Gentleman regard it as credible?

Peter Robinson: I do regard the IMC as a credible body. I have the highest respect for it, in spite of the fact that although there is a republican on it there is no Unionist, nor anybody with whom the Unionist community in Northern Ireland would readily identify. I have met the IMC, and it has issued reports that I am sure the Government did not like and which they would have preferred to be put in a different way. I understand that they will indicate that there has been some measure of progress. No one would be happier than my colleagues and I if there were progress in the reduction of paramilitary and criminal activity in Northern Ireland. That is what we want, but it has been painfully slow. However, the body that is charged with the decommissioning of weaponry is not the IMC, but the IICD and it is regrettable that, rather than admitting that it was wrong when it indicated that all weapons had been destroyed, it still wants to cover up the fact that some weapons are still being held.
I turn to loyalist paramilitary organisations. Apart from a very small decommissioning exercise on the part of the LVF, which was the first decommissioning of guns that had had their best days, there has been nothing on the part of loyalist paramilitaries, nor has there been any indication of intent by the loyalist paramilitaries to decommission their weapons. It is unfortunate for loyalist paramilitary organisations—I point this out to the hon. Member for Belfast, South—that whereas pressure can be put on the Provisional IRA to decommission in that the party that represents it is of a size that merits positions in government under the d’Hondt system and the existing structures, there is no such enticement for loyalist paramilitaries. Concessions were given hand over fist to the Provisional IRA to hand over its weapons, but nothing of the sort has happened for loyalist paramilitary organisations, nor do I ask the Government for that. I do not believe that they should have bought guns from the Provisional IRA, nor do I believe that they should buy guns from the loyalist paramilitary organisations.
I want to put it clearly on the record that all loyalist paramilitary organisations must hand over their weapons and that those weapons must be destroyed. Our community does not need illegal weaponry and it is in everyone’s interest to destroy weapons. I must tell the hon. Member for Belfast, South that, by and large, the trend in the future will be that any weapons held by republican organisations are more likely to be used against those who live in nationalist areas than against those who live in Unionist areas. Equally, loyalist paramilitary weapons are more likely to be used against those in Unionist areas for territorial control. It is in all our interests to see all illegal weaponry out of existence.
That brings me to the heart of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Down. I presume that its sole purpose is to try to introduce some pace and urgency into the process and to persuade the Government to apply themselves tothe earliest possible date. At the moment, the Government’s attitude is that if they do not come up with the weapons they will just add on a few more years. We will never get to the end of the road with that attitude in the Government. We must apply some urgency to the matter and the hon. Lady’s amendment deserves support if it does nothing other than to persuade the Minister to roll up his sleeves and get down to work.
The Minister is pointing to the Under-Secretary who has already taken off his jacket. I hope that some urgency will be introduced into the process and that we can tackle the matter once and for all and close the chapter, knowing that the guns have gone and that the prospects for peace are heightened.

Shaun Woodward: I join other hon. Members in welcoming you to the Chair,Mr. Atkinson. This afternoon’s debate reveals that your expert chairmanship is needed as we steer through these difficult waters and decommissioning.
The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Down rightly raises the debate and we welcome that. The Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 contains order-making powers for the Secretary of State to extend the amnesty period during which paramilitary arms may be decommissioned. The amendment seeks to reduce the proposed extension of the order-making power so that the latest permitted date of the amnesty would be February 2008. We believe that retaining the option to use the order-making power for a further three years until February 2010 is a better way forward.
I am not suggesting, despite what other hon. Members have said, that we should anticipate that loyalist groups will take a further three years to decommission their weapons. If the order-making power is not needed, it will not be used. Despite the apparent differences between the hon. Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and for Belfast, South, they are to an extent both right. Of course the matter is urgent. In giving ourselves the power to extend the time to 2010 we still recognise that. However, we are approaching the matter realistically and avoiding the need to return for primary legislation in the event that things cannot be achieved as quickly as we should like.

Lady Hermon: Have any discreet private overtures been made by officials in the Northern Ireland Office to members of the UVF or the UDA to try to encourage them to begin the process?

Shaun Woodward: Huge progress is being made. I remind the hon. Lady that many people would, obviously, have wanted decommissioning to have happened many years ago. The fact is that it has taken a long time to get to the point that we have reached, but that does not mean that we should not have gone on trying. It is precisely such powers as we are discussing that have contributed to our making the progress we have made. We can raise all sorts of questions and judgments about the nature of the IICD, although the Government absolutely respect—and adhere firmly to—its judgments, but huge progress was made last year.
The decommissioning by the IRA was historic. It took longer than everyone would have liked—that is self-evident—but it was achieved. Yes, we should like others to make the same progress, and it may take longer than we should like, but that does not change what we want to do or our confidence that it can be done. The reason for our extending the order for three years is not that we want the process to take three years. We do not share the pessimism of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire on the matter; we are optimistic.
I thought that the hon. Gentleman was slightly mournful in his view of the prospects for achievement. Perhaps he was up a little late last night reviewing the papers for “Sky News”, but the fact is that we believe we can make progress. We are being responsible. I know that the Liberal Democrats like to keep all their options open, but we are keeping open one option, which may take slightly longer than we should like. The hon. Gentleman is desperate to intervene.

Lembit Öpik: I thank the Minister for staying up long enough to watch me on Sky, but he misinterprets what I have been saying when he perceives it as a sign of pessimism. I am saying that the Government’s obsession with building in insurance policies in case of failure turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy, because it gives those people who are sceptical and resistant to the process the assurance of knowing that the Government themselves entertain the prospect that things may not work out.
The Minister must surely accept that on several occasions paramilitaries and other organisations have called the Government’s bluff about whether they have a plan B and said, “We don’t believe you”—and the Government have given in. Does the Minister accept that my argument is that by giving themselves wriggle room all the time they end up giving the same wriggle room to everyone else?

Shaun Woodward: I do not accept that at all. The extraordinary and historic decommissioning last year is evidence of why the power is absolutely necessary and that it works. Our recognition that although we should like to move even more quickly, things may take slightly longer, is simply prudent contingency planning. By fixing a three-year sunset, rather than the customary five years, we are sending a signal that we expect decommissioning to be dealt with sooner rather than later. The past years have brought about massive progress towards lasting peace and stability in Northern Ireland, following the full decommissioning by the Provisional IRA. The Government are determined to build on that progress by doing all that we can to secure the decommissioning of all paramilitary weapons, and encouraging loyalist paramilitary groups to make the transition from conflict to peace.

Lady Hermon: Will the Minister deal with the point about the NIO appearing to give conflicting signals, particularly to loyalist paramilitaries? In September, as I mentioned earlier, the Secretary of State indicated that the full rigour of the law would be thrown at loyalist paramilitaries if they did not move to begin decommissioning and co-operation. That was in September 2005. Has the full rigour of the law been thrown at loyalist paramilitaries, and if not, why not? Will it be done before 2010?

Shaun Woodward: I say first to the hon. Lady that despite her observations, we believe that there are no conflicting signals whatever. Those who retain weapons should not do so. That is the reason for the decommissioning order. Our objective is absolutely clear.
I am at one with the hon. Member for Belfast, East. He is right: there is no moral distinction to be made between republicans and loyalists who retain weapons. It is immoral and they should not do it, and we want them to hand in those weapons. The way forward is simple. Getting there will not necessarily be easy, but our objective is clear. All paramilitary groups, republican and loyalist, must commit to the peace process. That involves not holding on to illegal weapons.
The Government’s view on the matter is pragmatic, but we retain a crystal clear objective. We believe that it can be realised. For that purpose, we are extending the provision. If we do not have to use it, we will not return to Parliament every year to seek its renewal, but none the less we are making a prudent contingency plan in case we need it, based on what has happened so far and the time that it has taken. We recognise the urgency, and for that reason I hope that the hon. Lady will agree to withdraw her amendment.

Lady Hermon: I have listened patiently to the Minister’s response and I say calmly to him that he will have heard the remarks of the hon. Member for Belfast, East. The Minister should also have noted some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Belfast, South on the Democratic Unionist party. I must say that I was most disconcerted by those remarks. However, other remarks that he made were valuable.
The Minister should listen carefully to the representatives of Northern Ireland constituencies. We are saying loudly and clearly to him that the people of Northern Ireland cannot be expected to tolerate the continuing existence of private armies, whether republican or loyalist, that are armed to the hilt and engage in serious criminal activities. In an earlier debate, the hon. Member for Belfast, South referred to intimidation and extortion, as did the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). A catalogue of illegal activities are undertaken by both loyalist and republican paramilitaries. The people of Northern Ireland are sick, sore and very weary of it. They want paramilitaries from all sides off their backs.
This Government—our Government—should send a clear message to the people of Northern Ireland, who are part of the United Kingdom. I will therefore be pushing amendment No. 30 to a Division, because I wish a clear message to come from at least the Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies. I assume that Tory and Liberal Democrat hon. Members will also support the amendment.
The people of Northern Ireland need and deserve an end through the full rigour of the law to the Northern Ireland Office’s attitude of tolerance toward paramilitary organisations. That is what the Secretary of State pledged in September. With respect to the Minister, who is the security Minister, we have not seen much of that. We would like to see more of it.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 13.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25

Single wholesale electricity market

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Laurence Robertson: It was my pleasure to spend two years studying the Great Britain energy market, and very detailed and complicated it was too. I must confess to having not spent a great time studying the position in Northern Ireland or, indeed, in the Republic of Ireland, but I want to make one or two remarks about it. People in Northern Ireland pay more for energy than we do in Great Britain. I want to explore why that is so and whether the Bill holds out prospects of cheaper electricity for people in Northern Ireland.
Members of the Committee will remember that it was the Conservative Government who brought about privatisation, but that it was the Labour Government who took it further and introduced NETA—the new electricity trading arrangements—which, under the Energy Act 2004, became known as BETTA—the British electricity trading and transmission arrangements. The Government were right to introduce the change because it moved the position away from the old pool system of electricity that was based on long-term contracts to a much more fluid system that operated more like the stock market than it had previously. As a result, electricity prices in Great Britain fell considerably in relative terms to the extent that it became a slight problem in that, at one point, there was a shortage of investment in electricity generation because the price was so low and there was no incentive for companies to invest in generation. During recent months, there has been an increase in the price of electricity and gas, although that is a slightly different issue. It has been due to the world market that has been affected heavily by the oil situation. As much as anything else, it is a readjustment of the prices of fuel rather than a failure of the market. The trading arrangements that the Government introduced did a good service to both producers of electricity in the long term and domestic and industrial consumers.
Changes are planned, but the benefits did not extend to Northern Ireland in the way in which they should have done, nor am I sure that they will do so under the clause. Although the clause is headed “Single wholesale electricity market”, having discussed it with the relevant authorities in Northern Ireland my understanding is that the regulation of the market is being changed rather than a market being created. I would be glad to be corrected. There is not even one overall body being created; I understand that there will be an attempt to harmonise the regulation of electricity in Northern Ireland with that in the Republic. We will not move towards the type of market that we enjoy in Great Britain, so the benefits will not flow to consumers in Northern Ireland in the way that they have to those here. Again, if I am wrong, I will be pleased to be corrected.
I am a little concerned about the creation of north-south bodies, considering what the Government said in their recent statement. I hope that the Assembly does get up and running because of the Bill that we will consider tomorrow, but I did not like the insinuation that there could be a strengthening of cross-border bodies even if the Assembly is not running. That was not what was agreed in the Belfast agreement, and I have some concern about it.
I do not want to be seen to be urging the creation of a north-south body, given the uncertainty of the situation, but there are possible benefits in the creation of a bigger electricity market across the whole of Ireland, just as there would be in one that covered both the UK and Ireland. I am as anti-EU as one could wish to find in the House, but there could even be benefits in creating a bigger electricity market across Europe. That does not necessarily mean that regulation would have to be as one, although there would have to be some harmonisation.
There are great difficulties in energy at the moment. The UK increasingly has to get its energy from further afield. Not long ago we were a great producer of gas from the North sea; we are now net importers of gas. The places from where that gas is coming are slightly worrying: Russia, Algeria and other countries that might not be considered politically stable. Russia has recently ended its supply of gas to a couple of countries, which cannot be a good thing.

Peter Atkinson: Order. I am reluctant to stop the hon. Gentleman, who is giving an interesting exposition of the energy situation, but can he bring his comments back to the clause, which refers to Northern Ireland?

Laurence Robertson: I apologise for straying away from Northern Ireland. The point that I seek to make is that I am not convinced that the clause will move us towards greater security in the supply of electricity or cheaper prices for consumers in Northern Ireland. We need to look further into the future than the clause apparently does. I would be pleased to be corrected, but from discussions with authorities in Northern Ireland, I understand that the clause is modest. Maybe the Government are planning ahead, or maybe they intend to leave the issue to the Assembly, but I would like to hear the Minister’s response to my points.

Alasdair McDonnell: I endorse the broad context of the remarks of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury. If time permitted, I should like to talk at length, as he did, not just about the content of the Bill, but about east-west connections between Britain and Ireland, and those with continental Europe. I shall forgo doing so, however.
The clause and the Bill implement an ambition on which all parties agreed when the Assembly was functioning. I sat on a committee there that moved forward energy issues. It had nothing to do with constitutional politics, and there did not seem to be any threat to anybody’s political interest.
The situation in Northern Ireland is serious. Historically, we have had severe stranded costs, caused by the privatisation of power stations and the setting of prices at levels that are much too high by today’s standards. The cost of producing electricity had dropped for a period, but now it may be going up again. The severe stranded costs will continue until 2010 or 2012. The clause probably does not go far enough, but I see it very much as opening a door to create the space for serious discussions, which the hon. Member for Tewkesbury referred to earlier in more depth. I would like those discussions to be pursued, because the island of Ireland as a whole has fewer than 2 million people in the north and 4 million in the south. We need 12 million people for a serious energy market. We have some connection with the grid in Scotland. We have a connector there, but it is fairly fully occupied and we need another connector. It could be between Wales and southern Ireland, or we could have a second connector between Northern Ireland and Scotland.
The clause is a prelude to such discussions, and it will facilitate their opening. It will create confidence for players in the market. Opening up and facilitating a discussion is the political intention of the House, and I think that the commercial interests want to see a clear indication that that is happening. From that point of view, I endorse and support the clause.

Sammy Wilson: The vague terms that have been used so far show that none of us is sure how the single energy market will operate or indeed what the implications will be. I made it clear from the outset that the DUP considers that, if there are grounds for north-south co-operation on issues that are of economic benefit to people in Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, we will not stand in the way. Indeed, we would be foolish to do so.
I want to ask the Minister several questions about this clause, however, as I do about clause 26. First, the single energy market will create a pool into which generators will supply their electricity, which will then be sold to the various distributors. Every half-hour of the supply into the pool will be monitored. The demand and the price will be set accordingly.
There are some hidden dangers that I want the Minister to address, perhaps when we come toclause 26. Creating a middleman—the pool in the single energy market—means that there will be additional capital costs, including initial capital costs. Can he say what they will be? They have been estimated at between £10 million and £30 million. There will then be ongoing monitoring costs, because both the input to the pool and the output to the various suppliershave to be monitored, after which there will be billing arrangements and so on. The revenue costs and the initial capital costs, together with any change inthe arrangements during the time, are likely to add to the overheads when it comes to supplying electricity to the consumer.
Before we go down such a route, I want to be assured that, instead of looking at the political glow that might come from a single market, we actually examine the harsh economic realities. If they do not stand up to rigorous economic analysis, it would be better to steer away from the arrangement.
My second point relates to subsection (2)(b), under which the provisions would
“confer powers on bodies or persons specified in, or appointed under or by virtue of, the Order, including powers to make statutory rules (within the meaning of the Statutory Rules)”.
There is a worry for the existing generators in Northern Ireland, because the consultation paper entitled “Northern Ireland’s Generators — Managing Security of Supply in a Period of Transition” said that the implementation of a single electricity market could lead to existing contracts being revoked. That has caused grave concern.
There are two major generators in my constituency of East Antrim, and that statement has caused major concern for those who have already invested heavily on the basis of the prices that they anticipated and the revenue streams that they expected to receive from the electricity that they generated and supplied to the grid. It has severe implications for them.
If the Bill enables the proposed body to revoke those contracts willy-nilly, it will have an implication for future investment as well. Investors want to know that when they invest, rules are set down that will continue to apply and will not be changed at the discretion of a newly created body or through some new rule that it decides to introduce. Otherwise, companies will not have the confidence to invest.
As the hon. Member for Belfast, South pointed out, there are capacity problems in the market as a whole. Over the next number of years, additional capacity must be added to the system for the whole island, both for Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. If investors see that contracts have been changed, what guarantee will we have that we will get the stability of supply that we need? Will new generators come into the market to provide diverse means of production and security of supply over the longer period? Will the Minister reassure me as to the meaning of clause 25(2)(b)? How far will the powers extend for existing contracts?
My third point concerns a matter that will require legislation in the Irish Republic. We discussed such matters when we debated the arrangements for donations to political parties. If legislation is not introduced in the Irish Republic to provide the same safeguards as are provided in Northern Ireland, it will have serious implications for the single market. Will the Minister tell us what discussions he has had with the Government in the Irish Republic to ensure that the legislation that is required in that jurisdiction reflects the provisions made in Northern Ireland?

David Hanson: I shall try my best to answer the points that have been made by hon. Members during this short debate on clause 25. I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for East Antrim welcomes the provision in the Bill. I understand that his party will adopt a pragmatic approach to these matters, and the clause will bring great benefit to Northern Ireland in the long term. I shall also try to deal with the points made by the hon. Members for Belfast, South and for Tewkesbury, as well as those of the hon. Member for East Antrim.
I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela E. Smith), who is taking the lead on dealing with this matter as a policy issue. She has day-to-day responsibility for these matters outside this Committee with officials from the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Clause 25 will enable Her Majesty by Order in Council—I am afraid that again it is by Order in Council—to give legal effect to any agreement that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary can achieve between the British and Irish Governments relating to the creation of a single wholesale electricity market in Northern Ireland and the Republic. I hope that I can reassure all hon. Members that in the event of an agreement being reached between the Irish and British Governments, it will be presented to Parliament by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for information and confirmation.
To answer the point made by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and the Irish Government hope that a memorandum of understanding, rather than a formal treaty, will be established between the British and Irish Governments to put in place several safeguards and ensure that the key elements needed to establish a single wholesale market will be put in place. Although that memorandum is still subject to discussion with the Irish Government and the electricity operators—to answer the point made by the hon. Member for East Antrim—it is still being consulted on and discussed with them. However, in the event of an agreement being reached, it is hoped that the memorandum of understanding will cover a range of issues, such as regulatory arrangements, the role of the market operator, dealing with market power and dominance, sharing information between the Republic and the British Government, licensing arrangements and access to the market.
We have taken an assessment of the costs of the exercise that could be undertaken, subject to the agreement between the two Governments. An early estimate is that, if the single market were established, the total implementation and operational costs in Northern Ireland would be in the region of £34 million over a 10-year period. The cost during that period would be offset by a potential saving of £30 million, so at the end of the first 10-year period, if the agreement is reached, the net cost to Northern Ireland would have been about £4 million. However, after 10 years, savings accruing to Northern Ireland would, I hope, be passed on in the long term to the hard-pressed electricity payer in Northern Ireland.
I have to say to all hon. Members who have raised this question, including the hon. Member for Belfast, South, that in the short term I doubt whether the ordinary electricity payer in Northern Ireland will make savings as a result of this exercise. In the long term, however, there are potential savings to be made, and after the 10-year period, they will accrue in ever increasing amounts, subject to ever-rising electricity prices, which are causing problems in all hon. Members’ constituencies, not least those in Northern Ireland.
The market will bring greater competitive opportunities as well as efficiencies and economies of scale. The most important thing to emphasise to the hon. Members for Tewkesbury and for East Antrim is that, potentially, after 10 years the economies of scale and efficiencies that can be made for generators and suppliers will lead to savings that I hope will, in due course, be passed on to ordinary individuals in Northern Ireland. Again, I emphasise that energy will ultimately be the responsibility of the Assembly. I would hope that, in due course, when the Assembly is reconstituted—as I hope it will be—it will monitor and take forward this aspect of policy provision.
I hope that that has answered some of the points made by hon. Members. I am attempting to answer them on behalf of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who I am sure would be happy to meet colleagues in the event of the agreement being progressed.

Sammy Wilson: I appreciate the point that the Minister made regarding the cost; I suppose that he can give only an estimate. However, will he address the issue that I raised about how secure the current contracts will be with the advent of a single electricity market? Will it be possible for the operator to revoke those contracts, or will they be guaranteed to run to end of the relevant period?

David Hanson: I shall return to that point in a moment, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to do so.
As I mentioned, the £34 million cost over the 10-year period will be taken into account with the£30 million of savings. The hon. Gentleman made a good point with regard to the current operators, with whom the matter is being discussed. The memorandum of understanding, if agreed with the Irish Government, will take into account all those matters.
The Order in Council that proposes the memorandum will be subject to consultation.Clause 25 simply gives to the Government the power to make that agreement, but the agreement and its potential implications for existing operators regarding savings or otherwise and for the relationship between the Irish and British Government will all be subject to the order, which will itself be subject to consultation.
To get back to the basics, the clause will give my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary legal backing to negotiate the memorandum of understanding with the Irish Government and to introduce an Order in Council to bring that into effect.

Laurence Robertson: I realise that this is a specialist area, and I appreciate the Minister’s attempts to explain a difficult and complicated situation.
I shall reiterate what I was trying to say: the regulation is one thing, but the actual opening up of the market is another. The existing long-term contracts present a bit of a problem because they could end up keeping the price of electricity high, but as the hon. Member for East Antrim said, it is important to honour those contracts. I hope that the Minister will speak to his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, because it is important that we move as quickly as is fair towards an open market in electricity, and not just harmonisation of regulation.

David Hanson: I anticipate that the current contracts will operate certainly until 2010. After that date, they will be a matter for discussion and consultation; discussions on the single electricity market and how it will operate and affect contractors in the future are under way already with existing operators.
Clause 25 will give my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary the power to negotiate the memorandum of understanding and to bring it back here after consultation for execution by this House and implementation beyond that date. I understand the concerns that current operators will have, and I hope that the reassurance of 2010 will be of assistance to them. Those matters will be subject to consultation, at which stage the hon. Member for East Antrim, with his constituency interest, is welcome to make his points.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26

Financial assistance for energy purposes

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Laurence Robertson: On this occasion, I shall attempt not to stray on to the issue of Russian gas supplies.
Let us compare the renewables market in this country with that in continental Europe, where the supply of renewable energy is far more prevalent. Continental Europe generates far more electricity from renewable sources than we do. As hon. Members might well be aware, the renewables obligation covers Great Britain, but we manage to generate only about 3.5 per cent. of our electricity from renewable sources compared with the target of 10.4 per cent. by 2010.
Now that it is 2006, that target looks very ambitious, but it does not seem awfully high when we consider the necessity of moving towards the cleaner generation of electricity, for which the necessary technology has been around for some time. For Northern Ireland there is the non-fossil fuel obligation, but that will be set at only 6.3 per cent. by 2012, which is not terribly ambitious. At the moment, the figure is about 3 per cent.
I accept that there are problems with the promotion of renewable energy in Northern Ireland that do not exist elsewhere in Great Britain, where there is perhaps more potential for the generation of renewable electricity. In encouraging renewable electricity in Great Britain, the Government have made the mistake of depending far too much on windmills. Although they have their place in electricity generation, several problems are associated with them. The biggest is that they are intermittent—when the wind does not blow, we get no electricity. That might seem like an obvious statement, but the wind tends to blow only 30 per cent. of the time, so we get electricity only during that time. The great problem with electricity is that it cannot be stored, so if the wind blows twice as hard one day, we cannot get twice as much electricity and store it for a day when the wind does not blow.
For two years, I have tracked the Government on energy issues and shadowed the Minister for Energy and I think that we need a much broader approach to developing renewable energy. There is far too much emphasis on wind power—

Peter Atkinson: Order. I am sorry to stop the hon. Gentleman again, but I am anxious not to have a general debate on the merits of wind power versus nuclear or otherwise. The clause touches on promoting wind farms in Northern Ireland, and his comments must relate to the Northern Ireland situation.

Laurence Robertson: Thank you, Mr. Atkinson. Having visited a wind farm in Northern Ireland, I felt slightly qualified to discuss the issue. I am merely trying to suggest that the Government take a much broader approach to developing renewable energy in Northern Ireland than they have in Great Britain. The approach that they have taken in Great Britain has left us struggling to meet the targets, and I do not want the Government to fail to meet the modest targets in Northern Ireland. If they are serious about developing renewable energy in Northern Ireland, they need to be much more focused than they have been in Great Britain.

Sammy Wilson: I have a couple of points relating to the purposes of the financial assistance and the aims listed in subsection (2) of the clause. Those aims are admirable, but the existence of a single energy market poses a particular threat. The biggest player in that market will be the Electricity Supply Board—the electricity generating body from the Irish Republic. Contrary to the current situation in Northern Ireland, it will be not only a generator, but a supplier, transmitter and distributor, and it will control at least half the market. Given that the electricity that goes into the pool will be based on half-hour transmissions, such a large supplier will have the potential to distort the price to its own advantage, which is particularly worrying.
What steps will be taken during the negotiations to deal with that issue? Attention must be paid to it to ensure that one large player, which will not only supply the pool, but buy from it, does not distort the market. What steps will be taken to ensure that that does not happen? The danger is that ESB could drive out some of the smaller generators by influencing the price. As the hon. Member for Belfast, South said, the energy market on the whole island—in Northern Ireland and in the Irish Republic—is quite isolated. Some power can be brought in through the interconnector from Scotland, but by and large the island is quite isolated, so the loss of one generator could greatly distort the market and greatly increase price volatility. That is one of the reasons why I said at the start that although in theory a single energy market would be welcome—

Peter Atkinson: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but we are again straying rather wide of the clause. As its title says, it is about financial assistance for energy purposes. I should be grateful if he related his speech to that subject.

Sammy Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Atkinson. I was dealing with subsection (2), whose first purpose is
“to secure a diverse and viable long-term energy supply”.
If steps are not taken to address the power and influence that can be exercised by one supplier and distributor controlling 50 per cent. of a single market, that purpose will not be achieved. It will be possible for that one supplier to influence the price and affect in the long term the number of generators in the market.
I should appreciate some guidance from the Minister on what discussions have been held on the matter. One way around the problem is a fairly generous capacity payment mechanism, whereby generators would be paid to keep some surplus capacity so that peaks and troughs could be dealt with and sufficient generating capacity would exist during peak periods to ensure greater price stability. I do not know whether discussions have been held along those lines, but that is one solution that generators have suggested. They have a vested interest in being paid for surplus capacity, of course, but it would be equally beneficial to consumers in that it could even out price peaks and troughs during the year or the day.
Attention must be given during negotiations to the ESB’s ability to distort the market and to affect the working of something that should be beneficial to consumers, rather than going in the long run against some of the purposes in clause 26.

Alasdair McDonnell: I am conscious of the time, but I feel that it would be remiss of me not to welcome the clause warmly, as I welcomed clause 25. Renewable energy and diversity of supply are important issues for us in Northern Ireland, and from where I stand, I see a gap. The Government must have the ability to intervene to develop the market and to encourage those who are uncertain about investing in renewable energy to move forward.
I do not wish to delay the Committee unduly, as other business is on the schedule, but I want to endorse strongly the broad principles of the Bill and urge the Minister to see that those principles are applied to ensure a stronger renewable energy sector. We need diversity of supply, because the present circumstances do not do enough to encourage and create that market. I warmly welcome the clause.

David Hanson: The clause is important for the reasons that hon. Members have mentioned. Developing renewable energy is crucial to the alternative energy sources required to help improve Northern Ireland for the future. At the moment, Northern Ireland is at99 per cent. of the quota on imported fossil fuels and other energy sources. We need to examine alternative energy.
For that reason, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced early this year that he would allocate a £259 million support package to develop alternative energy sources during the next few years. The clause gives legal effect to the amendment of existing legislative powers so that financial assistance can be provided for energy purposes. It will enable the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to assist in a wide range of energy provisions, including renewable development. I hope that it will be welcomed by all hon. Members.
The target in Northern Ireland is for 12 per cent. of electricity to be supplied from renewables by 2012. I accept that that is an ambitious target.

Laurence Robertson: The Minister has access to far more information than I have. I was told that the obligation was for 6.3 per cent. with an aspirational target of12 per cent.

David Hanson: Indeed. The renewables obligation is 6.3 per cent., but the Government target is to try to make it 12 per cent. by 2012. We need to support renewables effectively. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for the Government’s attempt to develop renewable energy. Far be it from me to reflect that, as I recall it, when the £59 million that the Government are allocating was announced in the Budget, the hon. Gentleman voted against it. I welcome the fact that he is committed to supporting renewable energy, but I wish that he was committed not only in his aspirations but in his voting.
Having said that—let us not be churlish—the hon. Gentleman said that wind power is important. Yes it is, but that is not all that the Government intend bringing forward under the Bill. If the clause becomes law, we intend to give powers to the Secretary of State to ensure that research on generating energy from waste products is undertaken, with a £15 million fund; there will be accelerated deployment of solar power; and over the next couple of years, the Housing Executive will be installing 600 solar heating systems in social housing and increasing to 10,000 the number of homes that receive energy from solar power through a number of energy efficiency measures under the warm homes scheme. We will also build market capacity with an investment of £2.5 million, and we are underpinning the knowledge economy by investing in such areas. I would certainly say that the clause is important. It gives legal backing to the power to achieve those results.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South mentioned ESB—an important point. [Hon. Members: “East.”] I apologise; I meant to say the hon. Member for East Antrim. I know the difference between Antrim, South and Antrim, East; I have seen both of them kicking around in the park on several occasions. It was a slip of the tongue.
As the hon. Member for East Antrim said, ESB will have nearly 60 per cent. of the generating capacity in the new market, and we need to consider how to prevent ESB from abusing its market power. The dominance of ESB is a challenge to the operation of the new markets, and the Irish Government too are considering the position of ESB in their review of the Irish electricity sector. The Department for Enterprise, Trade and Investment has taken a close interest in the matter, and the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon, will be considering it carefully.
In recognition of ESB’s current position, the regulators are developing a market power strategy to address the potential for market abuse by participants that control a dominant segment of the generating plant capacity. Again, I hope that that will be a matter for further discussion, and I am sure that, if required, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will support a meeting with the hon. Member for East Antrim to discuss the matters further.
I commend the clause; it is valuable, and I am grateful that hon. Members in all parts of the Committee support it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27

Extension to Northern Ireland of provisions of SOCAP 2005

Lady Hermon: I beg to move amendment No. 31, in clause 27, page 18, line 27, at end insert—
‘(1A) Section 112 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (power to direct a person to leave a place) extends to Northern Ireland.'.
I am delighted to speak to yet another miscellaneous provision in the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. The clause covers for the first time a subject that has not been mentioned—the extension to Northern Ireland of the provisions of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. The amendment is fairly obviously a probing amendment. It proposes extending to Northern Ireland section 112 of that Act.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Peter Atkinson: Before Lady Hermon resumes, I shall say that I intend to adjourn the Committee for a short period for a dinner break at 7 o’clock. I hope that that might focus minds.

Lady Hermon: I apologise, Mr. Atkinson, if I appeared to hesitate earlier. I had not heard the Division Bell because I was so excited by the anticipation of what the Minister would say aboutthe delay in extending to Northern Ireland sections of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, and in particular sections 60 to 67, 69 and 70, which are belatedly being extended by clause 27.
I have considerable concern about that point. The Minister, who is a diligent Minister and takes his responsibilities seriously, will have noted that immediately before the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill came before the House there was yet another report from the highly respected and regarded Independent Monitoring Commission, which he and his colleagues are so keen to quote to us. They will doubtless do so again before the end of the week.
I shall quote from the November 2004 IMC report, which I recommend to all members of the Committee if they have not already read it. Paragraph 5.5, on page 27, is pertinent to discussion of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act. It states:
“The Northern Ireland Organised Crime Task Force has stated that there are some 230 organised criminal gangs believed to be operating in Northern Ireland.”
I shall repeat that: 230 organised criminal gangs.
“We have been advised that about 60 per cent. or some 140 have paramilitary links and that, of the top 25 criminal gangs involved in international activities operating in early 2004, 17, some two-thirds, had paramilitary associations.”
The next sentence is the most striking on the entire page.
“Seldom in the developed world has this high proportion of the most serious criminals been associated with groups originating in terrorism, with an organisational structure and discipline, and the experience of planning, learning and conducting sophisticated clandestine operations, methods of handling money, and with traditions of extreme violence.”
That was the report as recently as November 2004.
I was astounded that, in 2005, despite that report having highlighted the seriousness of the situation in terms of organised criminals and the gangs that operate in Northern Ireland—let me remind all members of the Committee that Northern Ireland is a small part of this United Kingdom—many provisions of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act were not immediately extended to Northern Ireland by way of primary legislation. It concerns me greatly that now, two years later, clause 27 belatedly extends to Northern Ireland only sections 60 to 67, 69 and 70.
On Second Reading, the Secretary of State described the chief purpose of the Bill. He said:
“The Bill will chiefly allow maximum flexibility in the arrangements for the future devolution of policing and justice functions to the Assembly”.—[Official Report, 13 March 2006; Vol. 443, c. 1167.]
Had it not been for their overriding purpose of devolving to the Assembly the decision about when it wishes to take responsibility for policing and justice, when in heaven’s name would the Government ever have got round to extending to Northern Ireland the important provisions of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, which ought to have been extended at the time of that Act in 2005?
The amendment would extend to Northern Ireland section 112 of the 2005 Act, which deals with the ability of a constable to order a person to leave an area. For example, there has been a series of high-profile cases in Northern Ireland in which men—and let us assume that the vast majority of people who commit domestic violence are men—have been released, had their names included on the sex offenders register there, and gone on to commit serious offences. My amendment would extend to constables in Northern Ireland the section’s powers in, say, the case of a convicted criminal who had been told to stay away from the victim of sexual abuse. The key question is when the Minister intends to extend the other key sections of the Act to Northern Ireland. When will the Government get their minds around to that? I shall listen intently to the Minister’s response.

Shaun Woodward: I welcome the hon. Lady’s amendment and the debate that she has raised. Unfortunately, we are not able to accept the amendment, but perhaps I may crave her indulgence for a moment, so that she will understand why—and why, none the less, we are interested in her ideas.
The powers referred to in the amendment are part of a package of exclusion powers that include exclusion orders and, where appropriate, electronic monitoring, all of which, as the hon. Lady recognises, are available in England and Wales under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 and previous legislation, but not currently in Northern Ireland. Although the amendment is well intended, it would, even if technically correct, raise practical issues about how to apply it.
At present the necessary legislative building blocks are not in place in Northern Ireland to allow us to adopt the amendment as it stands. To extend section 112 of the 2005 Act to Northern Ireland now could require the creation of a much more substantive package of sentencing powers in the Bill, which is not what the Bill was designed for. My hon. Friend the Minister of State is now carrying out a review of the sentencing framework for Northern Ireland, including consideration of, for example, electronic monitoring. We hope to publish proposals for separate measures in due course, and in that context we shall of course carefully consider what the hon. Lady has said.

Lady Hermon: I appreciate the assurance that the Minister has given. I posed two questions, and I accept the answer about why the amendment cannot now be accepted, but my first question was why the provisions that clause 27 extends to Northern Ireland were not extended to it when the Act was first passed.

Shaun Woodward: Because at the time the exclusion orders were being developed for England and Wales, Northern Ireland was in the process of a criminal justice review, in the wake of the Belfast agreement. It was therefore deemed inappropriate to proceed with those powers for Northern Ireland. Things have clearly moved a long way since then. That is one reason for the review being conducted by my hon. Friend the Minister of State.
We are very mindful of the fact that the success of some of the relevant powers here could apply in Northern Ireland, and we are taking that into consideration. We do not think that this Bill is the right vehicle for a comprehensive set of measures, which would be necessary in the case of exclusion powers and exclusion orders. There is a better place to do that in light of the fuller sentence review. That is why, given those assurances and the fact that we are conducting the review, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

Lady Hermon: I am sorry that I seem to have given the Minister the wrong impression in my intervention. I warmly accept his assurances. I am surprised, as we draw towards the end of our consideration of the Bill, to have had an indication that a Minister—one, at least—has been listening to our suggestions as to how it can be improved for the sake of the people of Northern Ireland.
My intervention concerned the extension, under this clause, of the SOCAP provisions to Northern Ireland. The investigatory powers of the Director of Public Prosecutions—the powers spelled out in sections 60 to 67 and 69 and 70—were available to be extended to Northern Ireland in 2005. My question was, when on earth would they have been extended to Northern Ireland had it not been for the fact that the Government were adhering to a commitment to Sinn Fein to give an indication that they would devolve policing and justice to the Assembly?
That was the chief purpose of the Bill, but it has turned into a ragbag of all sorts of things. Of course I welcome the extension of some parts of SOCAP to Northern Ireland, albeit so late in the day. I am just sorry that the Minister did not take the opportunity to explain to me why the measure was so delayed, when it was meant to concern just the DPP—not exclusion zones; not legislation that did not extend to Northern Ireland; and not the review that is currently being undertaken by the Minister of State.
However, the Minister has given me an undertaking that a review is being conducted and that he will look positively at our suggestions for further action. With those assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clauses 28 to 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4

Minor and consequential amendments

Amendments made: No. 16, in schedule 4, page 36, line 25, leave out ‘(1)(e)' and insert ‘(1B)(a)'.
No. 17, in schedule 4, page 37, line 2, leave out ‘56' and insert ‘58'.—[Mr. Hanson.]

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 5

Repeals and revocations

David Hanson: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in schedule 5, page 38, leave out lines 26 to 30.

Peter Atkinson: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 15

David Hanson: These are minor amendments relating to the removal of clauses 10 to 12, which was considered on the Floor of the House last week.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 32

Commencement

Amendment made: No. 15, in clause 32, page 21, line 21, leave out ‘sections 10 to 13' and insert ‘section 13'.—[Mr. Hanson.]

Clause 32, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33

Extent

Amendment made: No. 32, in clause 33, page 22, line 4, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
‘(2) But the amendments and repeals made by Schedule 3 (and Schedule 5 so far as relating to that Schedule) extend to England and Wales and Northern Ireland only.'.

Clause 33, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

David Hanson: On a point of order, Mr. Atkinson. On behalf of the Committee, I thank you for your couple of hours in the Chair this afternoon and your co-Chairman, Mr. Taylor, for his efforts this morning. I must confess that I am pleased that we managed to complete our proceedings on the Bill in Committee today. I thank the Clerks for their patience and hard work, and I thank our colleagues in Hansard for their ever present recording of our utterings and mutterings. I thank my colleague the Under-Secretary, and the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling(Mr. Coaker), for their contributions. Finally, most of all, I thank my hon. Friends, the members of the Committee, for their unfailing support, patience and commitment, and their renewed interest in the events and affairs of Northern Ireland.

Laurence Robertson: Further to that point of order,Mr. Atkinson. I echo the Minister’s thanks to you and your co-Chairman, Mr. Taylor, and to your staff. I thank my colleagues who have contributed today. The Minister referred, I think, to the silent majority when he thanked his Back Benchers, but it is always interesting to take part in these debates, and I look forward to further debates this week.

Alan Reid: Further to that point of order,Mr. Atkinson. I thank you and your co-Chairman,Mr. Taylor, for conducting us efficiently through the Bill. I thank also all the staff who have assisted us and made the debate possible.

Sammy Wilson: Further to that point of order,Mr. Atkinson. I, too, on behalf of my group, who have been markedly absent today—they have deserted me—thank you for the expert way in which you have guided the Committee and for the last-minute incentive you gave us to rush through the final parts of the Bill. I thank also the Clerks and other staff who have steered the Committee through our proceedings.

Lady Hermon: Further to that point of order,Mr. Atkinson. It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to your kind chairmanship this afternoon, and to that of your co-Chairman, Mr. David Taylor, this morning. I must single out for comment the Whip, the hon. Member for Gedling. He happens to be in the Government party, but as an Opposition Member, I note that he has been very kind to all members of the Committee and has been receptive to the odd text message from the hon. Member for North Down, asking him why I have not been notified of certain matters. He always tries to keep us very well informed, and I single him out for thanks.
I commend also Hansard and the other officials. I commend Hansard for its speed, because when asked in a note in a brown envelope to submit the Secretary of State’s quotation from September, I did so, and when, within minutes, I needed it back, it had already gone. I commend Hansard staff for their efficiency and speed, and I look forward to reading what the hon. Member for East Antrim said in his long contribution on electricity. I am sure that I will understand it better on a second reading.

Alasdair McDonnell: Further to that point of order,Mr. Atkinson. I add my thanks and appreciation to all involved. However, perhaps the best way of showing that to staff would be to shut up and let them out of here. I add my thanks to you personally, Mr. Atkinson, because I am relatively new—I have less than a year under my belt—and I have appreciated your understanding and flexibility towards me as I am not quite up to speed with procedure.

Peter Atkinson: I thank the Committee for being so co-operative with my co-Chairman and me. I am sure that we are all delighted not to have to come back at 10.30 on Tuesday morning.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Committee rose at twenty-four minutes past Six o’clock.